EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL by B5DAR6TG

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 62

									East Hampshire District Council

Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday 12th April 2012
in the Council Chamber, Penns Place, Petersfield.

Present:      Cllr Ken Moon                     Chairman

              Cllr David Ashcroft               Cllr Chris Graham
              Cllr Bob Ayer                     Cllr Gina Logan
              Cllr Adam Carew                   Cllr David Newberry
              Cllr Ferris Cowper                Cllr Dean Phillips
              Cllr Lynn Evans                   Cllr Anthony Williams
              Cllr Angela Glass

Officers:     Mr Chris Murray                   Service Manager Planning
                                                Development
              Mrs Julia Mansi                   Planning Development
                                                Manager
              Mr Adrian Ellis                   Principal Team Leader
              Mrs Jo Barden-Hernandez           Service Manager Legal and
                                                Democratic Services
              Mr James Harris                   Committee Services
                                                Co-ordinator

Also:         Cllr Jennifer Gray                Cllr Pat Seward

77.     Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence had been received from Cllr Parkinson.

78.     Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 1st March 2012, which had
been previously circulated, were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

79.     Chairman’s Announcements

The Chairman announced:

(i)    The location of the fire exits and requested that everyone evacuated by
one of the fire exits and assembled in the car park, where a roll call would be
taken;

(ii)  To ensure all members of the public could hear the proceedings of the
meeting, a portable loop system was available;

(iii)   Asked that all present switched off their mobile phones to prevent
interference with the microphones;

(iv)  Asked that those making representations used the microphone when
speaking; and



                                       1       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
(v)   Invited Mr Murray, the Service Manager Planning Development to
address the Committee.

Mr Murray gave some background to the recently introduced National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and explained that whilst it superseded
national planning policy, it would not supersede the local plan for another 12
months. Existing policies generally conformed to the NPPF and could be
used freely; however he advised the Committee that it must have regard to the
NPPF.

Mr Murray updated the Committee on public representations which had been
received on applications 28889/024 and 28889/025, which formed items 5 and
6 of the agenda.

Minor amendments had been made to the application and additional
documentation relating to these had been uploaded to the website over recent
days. Members of the public had requested that the two applications be
deferred in order to allow public consultation on these changes to take place.

These changes had been listed within the supplementary matters sheet and it
was officers’ opinion that these changes were minor and would not have any
material affect on existing residents.

A request had however been made to defer the applications.

The Committee AGREED not to defer the applications.

80.   Declarations of interest

Councillor(s)     Item Number                        Nature of      Details of
                                                     Interest       Interest
Cllr Gina Logan   Part 2 – Section 1 – item (i) –    Personal       Cllr Logan was a
                  SDNP/23941/011 – Old Heath                        member of Liss
                  Lodge, Hill Brow Road, Liss,                      Parish Council.
                  GU33 7QD.

Cllr David        Part 1 – Section 1 – item (v) –    Personal       Cllr Newberry
Newberry          28889/024 – Land at Green                         was a member
                  Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville,                   of Clanfield
                  PO8 0JX; and                                      Parish Council
                                                                    and sat on its
                  Part 1 – Section 1 – item (vi) –   Personal       Planning
                  28889/025 – Land at Green                         Committee, but
                  Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville,                   was not present
                  PO8 0JX; and                                      when these
                                                                    items had been
                                                                    discussed.




                                       2       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
81.   Acceptance of Supplementary Matters

Councillors noted the supplementary papers which included information
received since the agenda had been published. These were reported verbally
at the meeting and are attached as Annex A to these minutes.

82.   Future Items

The Committee agreed to visit the following sites, provided that officers would
be minded to recommend the application for permission:

53234/001 – Land North East of Gully Copse, Cheeks Farm, Bentley, Alton;

21915/013 – Sand Pit South of Moorlands, Hogmoor Road, Whitehill, Bordon;
and

24404/009 – Hobsons Choice, Petersfield Road, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0EE

83.   Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) – Town and
Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England)
Order 2010 – Development Applications

The report of the Service Manager Planning Development, PS.366/2012 was
considered and it was RESOLVED that:

 Application No., Site and Description Resolution:

 39958/004/FUL                             Refused for the reasons as set out in
                                           Appendix B.
 Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House,
 Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton,
 GU34 4JX

 DEMOLITION OF
 COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS,
 DEMOLITION OF 3 SECTIONS OF
 WALL IN VICINITY OF
 COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS TO
 INCLUDE 4.5M SECTION OF EAST
 WALL TO ENABLE ACCESS OFF
 RYEBRIDGE LANE TO FROYLE
 HOUSE AND NARROWING OF
 ACCESS TO FORM FOOTPATH,
 INCREASE IN HEIGHT OF 13M OF
 NORTH-WEST WALL OF
 COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS, THREE
 REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS
 FRONTING RYEBRIDGE LANE WITH
 PARKING TO REAR, ONE NEW
 DWELLING WITHIN FROYLE HOUSE


                                       3      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
WALLED GARDEN, ALTERATIONS TO
GARAGE, NEW LEAN-TO GARAGE,
LANDSCAPING, PARKING AND
ASSOCIATED WORKS


39958/005/LBC                            Refused for the reason as set out in
                                         Appendix B.
Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House,
Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton,
GU34 4JX

DEMOLITION OF
COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS,
ALTERATIONS TO WALLED GARDEN
OF FROYLE HOUSE AND
ALTERATIONS TO GARAGES


39958/006/CAC                            Refused for the reason as set out in
                                         Appendix B.
Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House,
Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton,
GU34 4JX

DEMOLITION OF
COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS,
DEMOLITION OF 3 SECTIONS OF
WALL IN VICINITY OF
COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS TO
INCLUDE 4.5M SECTION OF EAST
WALL TO ENABLE ACCESS OFF
RYEBRIDGE LANE TO FROYLE
HOUSE AND NARROWING OF
ACCESS TO FORM FOOTPATH,
INCREASE IN HEIGHT OF 13M OF
NORTH-WEST WALL OF
COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS
(APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION
AREA CONSENT)


22180/030/FUL                            Permission subject to proviso and
                                         conditions as set out in Appendix A.
Charters Of Alton, 14 Winchester Road,
Four Marks, Alton, GU34 5HD

TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS (IN
PLACE OF APPROVED OFFICE
UNITS) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING


                                   4        Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
AND LANDSCAPING FOLLOWING
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
REDUNDANT CAR SHOWROOM AND
WORKSHOP (REVISION TO
APPLICATION 22180/028)


28889/024/RES                            Permission subject to conditions as set
                                         out in Appendix A.
Land at, Green Lane, Clanfield,
Waterlooville, PO8 0JX

RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION
FOR 137 DWELLINGS WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING,
LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE
PURSUANT TO OUTLINE
APPLICATION 28889/022 please note
this application is one of two, which
combined, cover details for the
proposed residential dwellings


28889/025/RES                            Permission subject to conditions as set
                                         out in Appendix A.
Land at, Green Lane, Clanfield,
Waterlooville, PO8 0JX

RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION
FOR 138 DWELLINGS WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING,
LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE
PURSUANT TO OUTLINE
APPLICATION 28889/022 please note
this application is one of two, which
combined, cover details for the
proposed residential dwellings


27470/013/FUL                            Permission subject to conditions as set
                                         out in Appendix A.
land rear of 54 - 58 Headley Road,
Liphook, GU30 7NP

TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH
ASSOCIATED ACCESS OFF TOWER
CLOSE, PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING (AS AMENDED BY
PLANS RECEIVED 23/02/2012 AND
21/3/2012)


                                     5      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
    SDNP/23941/011/FUL                       Refused for the reason as set out in
                                             Appendix B.
    Old Heath Lodge, Hill Brow Road, Liss,
    GU33 7QD

    TWO REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS
    WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS
    FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF
    ORIGINAL DWELLINGS
    (AMENDMENT TO DESIGN AND
    ACCESS STATEMENT RECEIVED
    28/3/2012)


84.    Part 1 – East Hampshire District Council – Applications and
related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council
as the local planning authority.

85.      Section 1 – Applications Reported in Detail

(i)    39958/004 – Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House, Ryebridge
Lane, Upper Foyle, Alton, GU34 4JX – Demolition of Colthouse/Cattleys,
demolition of three sections of wall in vicinity of Colthouse/Cattleys to include
4.5m section of east wall to enable access off Ryebridge Lane to Froyle
House and narrowing of access to form footpath, increase in height of 13m of
north-west wall of Colthouse/Cattleys, three replacement dwellings fronting
Ryebridge Lane with parking to rear, one new dwelling within Froyle House
walled garden, alterations to garage, new lean-to garage, landscaping,
parking and associated works.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item. He outlined the history of
the site, including the refusal for a similar scheme in August 2011 and the
permission of a scheme for housing within the walled garden in 2005. This
had been permitted as it was linked to Treloars School. Policy allowed for an
exception for new dwellings to be built outside of a Settlement Policy
Boundary (SPB) if they were linked to an education establishment.

A number of photographs of the site were shown, along with maps showing
the SPB and various elevations, layouts and streetscenes of the proposed
development. In their letter, English Heritage had judged Froyle House to be
the heritage asset, not the listed wall. The wall did not therefore have as
much value as previously considered and in light of this the recommendation
was for refusal.

The determining issues for consideration were:

     Principle of the development;
     Whether the proposal for the walled enclosure can be considered
       appropriate enabling development;
     Impact on the conservation area;


                                        6       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
   Parking arrangements;
   Access arrangements and highway impact;
   Impact on neighbouring properties;
   Trees;
   Conservation of energy;
   Contributions and legal agreement; and
   Ecological implications.

The officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

Mr Roberts addressed the Committee on behalf of objectors to the application.

Mr Roberts was the owner of the adjoining property and as joint owner of one
third of the wall, had an interest in its preservation. He felt it important to note
that the site was outside of the SPB, where development would not usually be
permitted. English Heritage was the authority on enabling development to
preserve heritage assets and had produced seven criteria which should be
met. This proposal did not meet all of these criteria in that other subsidy was
available to preserve the wall. He renewed the offer that local residents had
made to repair and look after the wall and garden. He had commissioned a
survey of the wall to be carried out, which had estimated that it would cost
between £40-£50k to repair it; much less than the applicant’s estimate. He
asked the Committee to refuse the application as it could set a precedent in
the local area.

Parish Cllr Whines addressed the Committee on behalf of Froyle Parish
Council.

He thanked the officers of the Planning Department for the thoroughness with
which they have prepared their report. They had to cope with a good deal of
criticism over the way the previous application was managed but they had
responded very fairly and even-handedly. They had encouraged the applicant
to publish the financial information on which the application was based and
had independently checked that information.

They had consulted with English Heritage over the interpretation of their
guidance for dealing with enabling development and they had concluded, in
the light of English Heritage’s advice, that this application failed to meet the
criteria for an enabling development to be acceptable.

Put very simply, in the view of the EHDC officers, English Heritage, Froyle
Parish Council and a fair number of local residents, the benefit of restoring the
wall, involving as it would a breach of planning policy, was outweighed by the
disbenefits. Namely, that the proposal would damage the historic landscape of
Froyle House.

The Parish Council regretted the fact that Treloars was leaving Froyle. The
village and Treloars had lived side by side for many years, working together
and raising funds for the Trust together. However the Parish Council



                                         7       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
understood why the Trust had made the decision to move and that it must do
its best to sell its property in Froyle at the best price it could obtain.

But in this instance, the Parish Council felt that the Trust was using a
technicality in planning regulations in an attempt to add substantially to the
value to a plot of land which lies outside the settlement boundary.

The Parish Council’s understanding was that this was not the purpose of an
enabling development, which should be designed to benefit a heritage asset,
not the owner of that asset.

This application failed to define the heritage asset conclusively and equally
failed to provide any assessment of its value.

Mr Cleary addressed the Committee as the agent for the application.

Treloars School was a charity, which was vacating the Froyle site to
consolidate at the Alton site. The tall walls were of significant value and in
2005 the Council’s Conservation Officer had suggested enabling development
in order to preserve them. This led to permission being granted for 28
dwellings within the walled garden. The NPPF stated that the benefit and
disbenefit of an application should be considered. In this instance the only
disbenefit would be a large new property near to the SPB.

There would however be numerous benefits including the restoration of the
wall, the removal of the parking area at the front of the site, the long term
maintenance of the copse and the use of the proceeds towards the new
Treloars school facility in Alton.

English Heritage’s report was not conclusive and stated that the decision
should be made locally. English Heritage had not objected to the previously
permitted application in 2005, or this current application. He asked the
Committee to approve the application.

The Committee made a number of comments, including:

   It was a shame the application encompassed a number of elements, as the
    proposed replacement dwellings at the front of the site would be an
    improvement. However, the larger house proposed for the walled garden
    would be too dominant;

   The proposed replacement dwellings at the front of the site would not be in
    keeping with Froyle House. Froyle House was Edwardian in style, whilst
    the proposed replacement dwellings would be constructed in the ‘Arts and
    Crafts’ style; and

   The Committee was being asked to approve a large new dwelling in the
    countryside. The NPPF and all policies recommended that the application
    be refused. Enabling development was the only exception to this and
    could only be justified if the funds raised were essential to promote another


                                        8       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
   policy. If the wall was so valuable as to need to be saved, then only
   enough funds should be generated in order to cover the cost of the works.
   English Heritage had stated that the wall was not an important asset and
   the funding generated by the new development would be in excess of what
   was needed to repair it. Therefore there were no grounds to approve this
   application.

The Committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10
Councillors voting FOR refusal, 1 Councillor voting AGAINST refusal and 1
Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, as set out in Part
1, Appendix B of these minutes.

(ii)    39958/005 – Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House, Ryebridge
Lane, Upper Foyle, Alton, GU34 4JX – Demolition of Colthouse/Cattleys,
alterations to walled garden of Froyle House and alterations to garages.

The determining issue for consideration was the impact of the alterations on
the character and integrity of the listed buildings.

The officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

The public speakers declined the opportunity to speak.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 11
Councillors voting FOR refusal, no Councillors voting AGAINST refusal and 1
Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that listed building consent be REFUSED, as set
out in Part 1, Appendix B of these minutes.

(iii)  39958/006 – Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House, Ryebridge
Lane, Upper Foyle, Alton, GU34 4JX – Demolition of Colthouse/Cattleys,
demolition of three sections of wall in vicinity of Colthouse/Cattleys to include
4.5m section of east wall to enable access off Ryebridge Lane to Froyle
House and narrowing of access to form footpath, increase in height of 13m of
north-west wall of Colthouse/Cattleys (application for Conservation Area
Consent).

The determining issue for consideration was the impact of the demolition of
the building upon the conservation area.

The officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

The public speakers declined the opportunity to speak.




                                        9       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 11
Councillors voting FOR refusal, no Councillors voting AGAINST refusal and 1
Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that conservation area consent be REFUSED, as
set out in Part 1, Appendix B of these minutes.

(iv)   22180/030 – Charters of Alton, 14 Winchester Road, Four Marks,
Alton, GU34 5HD – Two detached dwellings (in place of approved office
units) with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing
redundant car showroom and workshop (revision to application 22180/028)

The Service Manager Planning Development introduced the item. He referred
to application 22180/026 which had been permitted in November 2011 and
explained that this application was to replace the two office units with two
dwellings. The approved application was an unusual mix of housing and
employment use, but had been designed this way to comply with policy. The
buildings would remain the same and a wholly residential use of the site might
have benefits, but the loss of employment on site was a policy consideration.
In lieu of the loss of employment the applicant had agreed to make a financial
contribution of £72k to Alton College, in order to fund local apprentice
schemes.

The determining issues for consideration were:

     Principle of development and loss of employment provision;
     Appropriateness of the design and impact on the streetscene;
     Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties;
     Highways implications;
     Impact on trees of recognised importance;
     Land contamination/noise and amenity;
     Public open space, transport and environmental improvements; and
     Energy conservation.

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

Mr O’Farrell addressed the Committee on behalf of Four Marks Parish
Council.

The Parish Council was not completely happy with the original proposals for
this site because of the potential parking problems that two employment
buildings might bring to what was a fairly small area.

On the employment issue, the village could ill afford to lose such sites but in
this case, employment had ceased for some while on site. The Parish Council
still felt that Policy IB4, to retain business sites, should have some teeth by
use of financial recompense to aid business use elsewhere. If this could not
be achieved, then the Parish Council felt the original permission should
remain, as the loss would encourage other applications to use the loss as an



                                      10      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
example of non adherence to policy. There was already a similar site in the
village.

Policy affecting housing provision should also be considered and the Parish
Council questioned whether the dual use of this site was detrimental to
residential use because of lack of adequate parking and the possible
additional site traffic. This would possibly be governed by the actual business
use. The change to all dwellings was, the Parish Council believed, still lacking
in adequate parking but potential parking for a dozen or more employees spelt
trouble.

With the clash of policies, the Parish Council felt that if a provision was made,
the site should be all housing, but if this was not possible, this application
should be refused and the original remain.

One problem not considered was if the business use property was not sold or
let, how long would it remain empty, intentionally or otherwise, until a request
for change of use was submitted? The Parish Council did not believe any
rights existed to ensure the employment sites were correctly priced, marketed
and the only forcing hand would be loss of income to the owners.

The only likely use was office type space and there were already empty units
close by so was there a requirement for such buildings?

Mr Harris addressed the Committee as the agent for the application.

He explained that the previous application had been uncontroversial with the
exception of the retention of business use on site. This had raised questions
regarding parking and whether there was a market for offices in the area. The
revised scheme would look identical, apart from the additional gardens. The
ward councillor and the parish council had previously solely objected to the
office units and it was note worthy that no objection had been made on this
revision. An agreement on the appropriate contribution towards
apprenticeship schemes had been reached and this would be secured via a
legal agreement. Consultees had supported the application and he urged the
Committee to grant permission.

Cllr Seward addressed the Committee as a local District Councillor.

She endorsed the Officer’s recommendation for permission and stated that
when this application had first come in, two houses would have been
preferable to the office units and the parking problems that would ensue.

She realised that it was a prime location, but within their area they had a large
area allocated for office/industrial units. Many of the units already built were
standing empty, and not all had been completed.

She asked the Committee to vote in favour of the officer’s recommendation.




                                       11       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
Cllr Williams highlighted an omission in the second paragraph in part (b) of the
recommendation. The first paragraph included the mitigation of the loss of
employment land, but the second paragraph did not.

Officers agreed that this was an omission and that the paragraph should read
as follows: (the previously omitted text has been included in italics)

“In the event that a financial contribution for public open space, alternative
transport measures, environmental improvements and the mitigation of the
loss of employment land is not secured by 23 April 2012, planning permission
will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation”.

The Chairman offered Cllr Seward and the public speakers an additional
minute to sum up.

Cllr Seward reiterated that there were already empty employment premises in
Four Marks and that other employment land had been allocated.

None of the public speakers took up the offer for a further minute to sum up.

The Committee voted on the officer’s recommendation.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 11
Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST
permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part
1, Appendix A of these minutes.

The Committee adjourned at 7.59pm.

The Committee reconvened at 8.08pm.

(v)   28889/024 – Land at Green Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville,
PO8 0JX– Reserved matters application for 137 dwellings with associated
parking, landscaping and drainage pursuant to outline application 28889/022.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item and explained that the
previous outline application had approved the principle of and access for the
development. He explained that the houses in this and the following
application had been designed by the same architect and that there would be
a third reserved matters application for the community building, MUGA,
football pitch and open space areas of the site.

He displayed an aerial photograph of the site, a plan for the development of
the site and detailed plans illustrating surface water mitigation, the drainage
strategy and how the development would link with the surrounding area.

All of the houses would meet Code Level 4 for sustainable living and the unlit
footpath to Goring Avenue had been removed from the application, following


                                       12       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
further consideration of local objections. Additional comments of the County
Highway Authority and the Hampshire Astronomical Group were reported in
the supplementary matters papers, raising no objection to the proposals.

The determining issue for consideration were details pursuant to the reserved
matters.

The Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

Mrs Vincent addressed the Committee on behalf of objectors to the
application.

To put the request for deferral into context, 95 drawings and two reports had
been issued in the last seven working days, with three issued today. How
were the public to know whether the documents contained material changes
without the opportunity to review and comment on them. With regard to the
drainage details, these had been requested in January. Villagers should not
be penalised for the developers’ late delivery of information.

Objectors were very concerned over some of the proposals contained within
the report as they were contrary to the advice and recommendations of the
Council’s own consultees and were also based on unsound reasoning,
therefore, objectors would request that the Planning Authority
recommendations on the following issues are either rejected at this stage, or
deferred pending review, consultation and clarification.

Regarding the habitat and landscaping, there were many areas of confusion
between habitat details and landscaping proposals which needed clarification.
Also thirty three existing trees were planned to be removed, but insufficient
details had been provided as to the necessity, and how mature the
replacement stock would be.

The Council’s consultees recommended light fittings with 0% uplift. Today,
the Planning Authority advised that Hampshire Highways would not adopt 0%
uplift lighting, but a review of the HCC “Street Lighting Policy”, had no mention
of this and just stated that upward lighting should be kept to a minimum.

The Crime Prevention Design Officer, in his consultee comments, did not
approve of providing foot and cycle paths into adjacent estates and he quoted:
“I would also recommend that the requirement for the pedestrian accesses are
reviewed, especially those from Green Lane, Storrington Road, Goring
Avenue and Duncton Road”.

The footpath into Goring Avenue had been removed today, but the others
remained. Why did the Planning Authority insist on retaining these?

The proposal already included five foot and cycle paths from the development
into Green Lane and London Road, all providing good crossing points, so
there was no necessity to go through adjacent estates.




                                       13      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
The final line of the CPO’s report stated “I can only therefore conclude that
crime and disorder has not been considered during the development of the
proposal”.

The current car parking proposals provided only four visitor parking spaces,
which would be totally inadequate. The CPO stated that “Parking is a major
issue and can cause community tension”.

Objectors were assured that all houses would be only two storey, but the
report now said “with the exception of two Winchester style five bed dwellings”
These would be located at the top of the site, close to existing housing and
visible from the surrounding countryside. Why had both the Council and the
developer gone back on their word?

Parish Cllr Mrs White addressed the Committee on behalf of Clanfield Parish
Council.

She thanked the developer for accommodating the Parish Council’s previous
requirements, but asked that the following be clarified:

   Whether all dwellings, including flats, meet Code Level 4 for sustainability;

   Whether the photovoltaic panels on roofs which did not face south have a
    reduced efficiency;

   Whether rain water would be collected in underground tanks to be used as
    ‘grey water’; and

   Who would benefit from any revenue from feeding unwanted electricity
    generated by the photovoltaic panels back into the grid?

Mr Luken addressed the Committee as the agent for the application.

He outlined the consultation that had taken place around these applications,
which had included two events and the Development Consultation Forum. He
felt that this demonstrated goodwill on behalf of the developers to address any
concerns. It was reassuring to hear that the Committee had decided not to
defer these applications.

The drainage proposed would go beyond what was required and met with the
full agreement of Southern Water and the Environment Agency.

There would be 25 different house types, all of which would exceed the
required quality standard. Before any property was occupied it would have to
be verified as meeting Sustainable Living Code 4.

He wanted to create a flagship development and the developers had made a
package to exceed requirements. He hoped that the application would be
approved, so that the much needed housing could be delivered.



                                        14      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
With regard to some of the consultee comments, the Service Manager
Planning Development explained that each of the consultees had used their
relevant expertise to asses the application. It was the job of planning officers
to take all of this, often conflicting, advice into account when looking at the
application as a whole. Planning officers had not ignored the comments of the
CPO, but had instead weighed them against other considerations and
concluded that residents of the new estate would benefit from footpaths in
order to access local facilities.

The Chairman invited Cllr Newberry, his fellow Ward Councillor, to speak.

This was a very large development of 275 houses, a 15% increase to the size
of the village. The developer had put much effort into involving the Parish
Council and villagers. The Parish Plan had influenced the process and
villagers had taken up the many opportunities for comments. These
opportunities had included 10 public meetings, two all day events and a
Development Consultation Forum. The developer had been very reactive and
involved all parties along the way. He was satisfied that a very acceptable
development which met the design brief had been proposed. He felt that the
layout and design of the proposal was of a high standard, with a mixture of
interesting housing styles. The development would include 96 much needed
affordable homes and 25% of the area would be set aside for public open
space.

The development would integrate well with its surroundings and proposed
improvements to the existing flooding problems experienced in Green Lane.

The Committee made a number of comments and asked a number of
questions, including (officer replies in italics where appropriate):

   This was felt to be a very large, complex application with many critical
    issues. There were a number of reasons not to approve the application,
    but none would cause demonstrable harm;

The application, whilst containing many elements, was actually quite
straightforward. The Service Manager Planning Development advised the
Committee that the main issues for consideration were whether the design
and siting would be acceptable.

   With regard to the CPO’s comments, why were footpaths needed? Not all
    villages had defined footpaths, residents instead walked across common
    land to reach their destination. Cycle ways too could facilitate crime, as
    they offered quick entry and exit to estates.

These views were understood, but the Development Brief, created in
consultation with the Parish Council and residents, promoted such links. The
footpaths would provide easy access to local shops and officers were satisfied
that they would be well lit and have good surveillance. The footpath which
would have connected to Goring Avenue had now been deleted.




                                      15      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
   With regard to the concerns about lighting and light pollution, there was a
    window of opportunity before the Hampshire County Council (HCC) PFI
    started where any type of lighting could be installed. If the style of street
    lighting proposed could not be altered, then there would be a provision in
    the PFI to reduce the existing 6% uplift from street lighting in the village;

There was the danger of HCC not adopting the main road into the site if the
lighting was not agreed in line with HCC’s requirements.

   The cul-de-sacs would not be adopted. This could cause problems with
    regard to waste collection and the repair of potholes;

With regard to waste collection, there would be an indemnity which would
allow waste collection vehicles to collect from the unadopted roads.

   Despite the permeable surfaces, flooding could still be a problem due to
    the underlying clay and chalk;

   The roofs would have solar panels, however to maximise their efficiency,
    could the development be redesigned so that all of the houses faced
    south?

The Service Manager Planning Development replied that the number of units
had already been determined at the outline application stage.

   Not much information had been included on habitat enhancement or the
    loss of hedgerows and trees.

There had been a conflict between landscape and ecological requirements
and the scheme had been designed to facilitate ecological implementation.
The developer intended this development to be an ‘examplar’ with regard to
ecology and confirmation was given that the County Ecologist was happy with
the scheme.

The Committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for approval of
reserved matters.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10
Councillors voting FOR approval, 1 Councillor voting AGAINST approval and
1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that approval be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1,
Appendix A of these minutes.

86.    Standing Order 35.0 During the consideration of the previous item, the
Committee having sat continuously for three hours, agreed to an extension of
time of no more than one hour.




                                        16      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
(vi)  28889/025 – Land at Green Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville,
PO8 0JX– Reserved matters application for 138 dwellings with associated
parking, landscaping and drainage pursuant to application 28889/022

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item. He displayed an aerial
photograph of the site, along with the hedgerow planting scheme,
streetscenes and elevations of the proposed dwellings.

The determining issue for consideration were details pursuant to the reserved
matters.

The officer’s recommendation was for approval.

Mrs Vincent addressed the Committee on behalf of objectors to the
application.

Objectors were very concerned over some proposals contained within the
committee report as they were contrary to the advice and recommendations of
the Council’s own consultees and had also been based on unsound
reasoning; therefore, objectors requested that the Planning Authorities
recommendations on the following issues were either rejected at this stage, or
deferred pending review, consultation and clarification.

Regarding the habitat and landscaping, there were too many points to list in
the time provided, so she mentioned just a few.

   Habitat details were at variance with landscaping proposals which could
    affect the habitat and wildlife corridors;

   The Council's Principal Landscape Officer (PLO) had raised reservations
    and made additional suggestions, but these had been rejected by the
    Planning Authority;

   The thirty-three trees being removed had already been mentioned;

   The Planning Authority had rejected their PLO’s recommendations to carry
    out all of the landscaping during the first planting season; and

   A number of drawings conflicted, raising questions over the proposed
    planting specification.

With regard to the 0% uplift lighting, objectors would question the Planning
Authority’s statement that Hampshire Highways would not adopt 0% uplift
lighting because the HCC “Street Lighting Policy”, had no mention of this and
just stated that upward lighting should be kept to a minimum.

The section of the report on Crime Prevention had been considerably
downplayed as it failed to mention the four pages of recommendations made
by the CPO regarding foot and cycle paths, wall heights, lighting, car parking
and general house protection. The CPO was most damning in his closing


                                      17      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
statement which said: “I can only therefore conclude that crime and disorder
has not been considered during the development of the proposal”.

With regard to the feature pond and swale, requests for safety proposals on
these had gone unanswered and required serious consideration given that
children had drowned in garden ponds in very small amounts of water.

The proposed traffic calming arrangements on the site access road leading
down from London Road were at total variance to the original approved safety
audit as they would be further into the development, allowing greater downhill
speeds on the approach to a bend.

The original approved safety audit called for a route through the development
for emergency service vehicles between London Road and Green Lane for
genuine emergencies, but this requirement had been totally overlooked.

The car parking proposals would provide only two visitor parking spaces, even
more inadequate given that “parking is a major issue and can cause
community tension”.

Parish Cllr Mrs White addressed the Committee on behalf of Clanfield Parish
Council.

As per her previous statement, she asked whether the developer had
considered underground collection tanks for grey water.

Mr Luken addressed the Committee as the agent for the application.

He explained that the developers had been working closely to produce a high
quality scheme. There would be an increase in the number of trees on the
site, grassland would be protected and the boundary treatment had evolved
and would become a rich ecological habitat. Natural England had welcomed
these suggestions.

The Committee made a number of comments and asked a number of
questions, including (officer replies in italics where appropriate):

   Would the tile hanging on the dwellings comprise of red tiles?

In order to add interest, different dwellings would have different colour tiles.

 The habitats on site needed to cater for different animals and the aims of
the developer with this regard were laudable. However, the key to the
success of this would be linking areas of habitat via corridors and hedgerows
and it was not felt that the design was quite there yet.

The Committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for approval of
reserved matters.




                                        18      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10
Councillors voting FOR approval, no Councillors voting AGAINST approval
and 2 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that approval be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1,
Appendix A of these minutes.

(vii) 27470/013 – Land rear of 54-58 Headley Road, Liphook, GU30 7NP
– Two detached dwellings with associated access off Tower Close, parking
and landscaping (as amended by plans received 23/02/2012 and 21/03/2012)

The Planning Development Manager introduced the item. She displayed an
aerial photograph of the site, along with a block plan, elevations and a layout
plan. The site was within the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and further
photographs were shown of the site, nearby trees, the close, the footpath and
neighbouring properties.

The determining issues for consideration were:

     Principle;
     Impact on character of the area;
     Impact on neighbours’ amenities;
     Impact on trees and vegetation;
     Highway safety;
     Use of renewable energy;
     Developers’ contributions; and
     Drainage.

The officer’s recommendation was for approval.

Mr Goldsack addressed the Committee on behalf of objectors to the
application.

He had been elected to speak on behalf of seven households, including his
own, as the main objectors to this application. Objectors believed that there
were four main objections to this proposed development.

In June 2010 the Governments’ PPS3 amendment to discourage ‘garden
grabbing’ stated that garden developments should be classified as ‘greenfield’
sites and as such, should not change the character of the area or diminish the
amenities of the existing residents. Although objectors knew that this had just
been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework, they believed it
was still the Governments’ intention to continue to discourage ‘garden
grabbing’. He quoted section 6, clause 53: “Local planning authorities should
consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development
of residential gardens, for example, where development would cause harm to
the local area”. Contrary to the views expressed in the Committee’s report,
objectors, as existing residents, considered that if approved, this development
would totally change the character of this end of Tower Close which was, at
present, a small green haven of trees providing home to many birds, and one


                                      19      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
of the few wooded areas left in the village centre. Similarly, it would have a
huge impact on the amenities of the existing residents, causing considerable
overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjacent properties.

At present, there were a number of TPO’d trees on the site, and although the
applicant had tried to position the proposed properties and their accesses to
avoid damage to the root areas of these trees, construction work would still
take place within the root protection area of these trees. Objectors considered
this proposed ‘no dig’ method of constructing the paved areas and in particular
the proximity to the Coastal Redwood (number 22 on the tree protection plan)
and the Cypresses (number 12) would damage their roots and endanger their
long term viability. If this development was permitted, half of the 20 odd trees
in the immediate area were ‘proposed removal’, and who was to say how
many more could be felled by future residents in order to create light around
their properties.

Tower Close was a narrow residential road with a nursing home and an
elderly residents’ retirement development accessed through the close. There
was already an existing traffic access and parking problem in Tower Close
and especially with the large trucks making deliveries to the nursing home.
Any additional development would only exacerbate the problem and cause a
further safety risk to the elderly residents walking down the close.

Currently there was a problem with surface water drainage from the south
west side of Tower Close washing into the frontages of the properties opposite
and causing the area of the hammerhead to flood. Objectors believed that
even with the permeable surfacing proposed, two more properties with their
paved frontages would only make the situation worse.

Parish Cllr Jordan addressed the Committee on behalf of Bramshott and
Liphook Parish Council.

Applications for planning permission to develop the back gardens of 54-58
Headley Road had been before the Parish Council on a number of occasions.
On each occasion, objection had been raised on broadly the same issues.
These were:

   The development would alter the character of the area through the removal
    of gardens and a number of trees. Such development of combined
    gardens resulted in the irretrievable removal of open space and the green
    oases intended by the original settlement area. This resulted in an
    undesired concentration of housing and concreted surface area;

   The proposed development risked having a negative impact on the trees
    not removed, of particular concern being the Coastal Redwood;

   The development did not, in the opinion of several effected residents,
    adequately address the already recurring problem surface water drainage
    which in heavy rain could lead to problems in the lower lying houses.



                                      20      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
    Indeed, the problem would be made worse by further development and
    concreted surface area run off; and

   The access along the cul-de-sac road that was Tower Close was already
    congested and at times problematic. The inevitable street parking at
    points along its length resulted in a single track road of some 150 yards.
    Additional traffic movements at the extremity of the road’s access would
    only make this more difficult for residents of the established dwellings.

The Parish Council objected to this application and requested that the
Committee refuse it.

However, should the Committee approve the application, then the Parish
Council would request that the Council sought assurances that the existing
footpath between Headley Road and Tower Close be retained in a suitable
and sustainable form.

Mr Claxton addressed the Committee as the agent for the application.

He had been involved with the site for 12 years and explained that all of the
right hand side of Tower Close was backland development. This proposal
was the same principle. Two previous applications had been approved;
therefore there was a history of consents for development of this land. The
area did not have a single building style, instead having a mix of size and
design. The proposed dwellings would not therefore change the character of
the area.

Tower Close had met HCC’s technical standards six years ago and the
parking proposals would be in excess of the parking standard. The proposal
indicated a wish to retain the Red Cedar and the development would only
have permeable surfaces.

The Chairman invited Cllr Glass, a local Councillor to speak.

She had taken on board all that the public speakers had said. Similar
development had already taken place in the area, however this was a green
site and she felt that the proposed properties would be too large for their plots.
She shared concerns regarding delivery lorries and would want the existing
footpath to be retained.

The Committee made a number of comments and asked a number of
questions, including (officer replies in italics where appropriate):

   There were no planning reasons to refuse the application, but it was
    important that tree roots were protected;

   There were invariably cars parked opposite the area that would become
    the driveways, which was an issue that would need to be addressed;




                                       21       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
     Had an ecological survey been carried out? If not, one should be added
      as a condition; and

A survey had been carried out, but nothing had been found, apart from the
area being a foraging area for bats.

     Who owned the footpath and would it be protected?

The footpath was not part of the application site and there were no plans for it
to be altered.

The Committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for permission.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10
Councillors voting FOR permission no Councillors voting AGAINST
permission and 2 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part
1, Appendix A of these minutes.

87.   Standing Order 46.0 During the consideration of the previous item, the
Committee having sat for the one hour extension of time agreed under
Standing Order 35, agreed to suspend standing orders.

88.   Part 2 – South Downs National Park – Applications and related
planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council on
behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority.

89.      Section 1 – Applications Reported in Detail

(i)    SDNP/23941/011 – Old Heath Lodge, Hill Brow Road, Liss,
GU33 7QD – Two replacement dwellings with associated access following
demolition of original dwellings (amendment to design and access statement
received 28/3/2012)

The Planning Development Manager introduced the item. She displayed an
aerial photograph of the site and outlined the previous planning history of the
site. The annex had a Certificate of Lawfulness, therefore this application
sought to replace two dwellings with two dwellings. A block plan and
elevations of the current and previously refused applications was displayed for
comparison purposes and a number of photographs of the site and access
were shown.

The determining issues for consideration were:

        Principle of proposal;
        Impact on the character of the area (including on the South Downs
         National Park);
        Impact on the amenities of neighbours;
        Impact on trees;


                                       22      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
      Highways safety and parking;
      Developers’ contributions; and
      Sustainability.

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

Mr Lutener addressed the Committee on behalf of objectors to the application.

He introduced himself as the owner of The Maples in Plantation Road on the
northern boundary of the site. He also spoke on behalf of the owners of
Tallowood and Woodlands. They owned the properties most affected by the
high impact of this proposed development to which they objected most
strongly. They noted however that with regard to the reasons found for the
previous refusal:-

The total density on the site had not been meaningfully reduced. The two
proposed houses would have a total footprint equal to 195% of the current
building and this was only a slight reduction from the previous 200%. The plot
one property would be a very large 5 bedroomed house out of keeping with its
plot size. The second house would be squeezed into the corner of its small
plot. Policy H9 forbids “infilling” yet here was a clear case of the inappropriate
development of a residential garden which was also in direct conflict with the
new National Planning Policy Framework of 27 March 2012.

As to the bulk, it had now been clarified that the house on plot two would be
almost one metre higher than in the previous application. The only significant
reduction in size was to the garage, whereas the highest impact of the house
would be at first floor level and above, where the higher roof line would make
up for the reduction in the first floor area. The developer’s streetscene
Appendix was not a true representation of the impact on the surroundings.
With his letter of objection he had submitted a photograph taken from further
up Plantation Road on which had been superimposed the outline of the new
house showing how it would dominate the streetscene.

These were strong reasons for refusal especially in combination with the “two
dwellings” issue which remained contentious in this case. This was not “like
for like”. Approval would set a dangerous precedent and would send a clear
signal to developers that it was open season on any of the other neighbouring
Victorian properties. These defined the Special Housing Character of this
area, many of which were currently subdivided into flats, and therefore the
same argument would be forthcoming that they were multiple dwellings and
would be ripe for redevelopment with higher density housing.

Parish Cllr Halstead addressed the Committee on behalf of Liss Parish
Council.

Old Heath Lodge was built as a single dwelling which still had the appearance
of a single dwelling within a single curtilage. The replacement of one building
with two large houses would almost double the amount of built development
on the existing plot, and have a significant impact on the character of the area.


                                        23      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
Policy H9 specified that “replacement dwellings will only be permitted on a
“one-for-one basis”, “that all development must retain or enhance the
landscape setting of the site within its surroundings” and that “infilling
development will not be permitted”. The Local Plan (Appendix A) defined Infill
Development as “new development which occupies gaps within built up areas
between existing developments”. In these terms what was proposed was infill
development in conflict with Policy H9.

Policy H9 also stated that “development will only be permitted that maintains
the overall character of the area and does not have a detrimental impact on it.”
The text says that the “The District Council considers that the areas listed in
H9 have a special character which should be protected from further
intensification of development in order to retain the important contribution
which they make both to the variety of the housing stock and the street
scene”.

A similar application was refused last year. The new application had made no
change to the property on plot one. The footprint of the building on plot two
had been slightly reduced, but the ridge height would be increased by 10%,
resulting in a ridge height higher than that proposed on plot one. In addition
the building on plot two would be moved closer to Plantation Road causing it
to have a greater adverse impact on the street scene at the bend in this
narrow road and on the current open aspect at the junction with Hillbrow
Road.

Infill development on this scale, resulting in a significant intensification of
development was in direct conflict with the H9 Policy requirement that all
development must retain or enhance the landscape setting of the site within its
surroundings. Previously, Inspectors had recognised in dismissing appeals in
this particular H9 area, that to allow such development would set a dangerous
precedent which cumulatively would be severely detrimental to the character
and appearance of the area.

As set out in the Supplementary Matters sheet, Liss Parish Council did not
agree that the application was in accordance with Local Plan policies. The
Council strongly believed that the application should be refused on grounds of
scale and detrimental impact on the character of this Area of Special Housing
Character.

Mr Ellis addressed the Committee as the agent for the application.

The application site was within a Settlement Policy Boundary and a special
housing character area. The proposal was for two replacement dwellings. Not
infill development, that as a matter of principle complied with policy.

The application had been prepared and submitted following the refusal of two
previous applications. As explained in the report the siting, footprint, size and
design had been significantly revised to address the previous reasons for
refusal. None of the revisions would have any detrimental effect on
neighbours or the character of the locality.


                                       24       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
The new dwellings would be appropriate in design and compliment the
character of the special housing character area. The site was within a built up
area and the proposed dwellings would have no impact on the character of the
South Downs National Park.

The report fairly described the proposal and its implications and concluded
that it was in accordance with Local Plan policies and that it had addressed
the previous reasons for refusal.

Two weeks ago the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was
published and this was a material consideration and should be taken into
account in the consideration and decision on this application. Because the
NPPF was recent, he emphasised the following points:

Planning remained a plan-led system and decisions on planning applications
should be made in accordance with the development plan. There were no
other material considerations to warrant not permitting this development.
Therefore, the proposal accorded with the NPPF in that the development
would be within a Settlement Policy Boundary where the principle of ‘two for
two’ replacement dwellings was acceptable.

The local plan was recent and he advised that its policies should be given full
weight. The NPPF required that development that accorded with the
development plan be approved without delay. The proposal accorded with
NPPF policy for good design and a good standard of amenity for existing and
future occupants.

In conclusion he commended the recommendation and requested that
planning permission be granted for the proposal.

Cllr Gray addressed the Committee as a local District Councillor.

This site was in a Policy H9 area where the intention was to protect the
character of an area. As a Certificate of Lawful Use existed, it had to be
accepted that there were already two dwellings on the site. The applicant had
gone some way to improve the application, but plot two remained overbearing.
If the roof space was not to be used as a third storey, then why would it be so
high? This was a prominent location and the proposed dwelling on plot two
would not blend in with its surroundings. It was a large plot, but Policy H9
stated that any new development must retain or enhance the area. She did
not feel that this proposal would, as the replacement dwelling on plot two
would be disproportionate and overbearing.

The Committee made a number of comments and asked a number of
questions, including (officer replies in italics where appropriate):

   It was not helpful that some people thought that the proposal accorded
    with Policy H9, whilst some did not. Was this proposal in accordance with
    Policy H9?




                                       25      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
The Service Manager Planning Development replied that it could be either. If
the Committee concluded that the proposal would cause harm, it would be
against policy. Policy H9 allowed like for like development, but the Committee
did not have to accept that this proposal represented an appropriate
replacement. Officers felt that the proposal was acceptable.

   The Plantation Road junction was unsatisfactory. Could anything be done
    to improve the visibility, such as cutting the corner off plot one?

The visibility was substandard in both directions, caused in part by the
gradient of Hillbrow Road. Cutting the corner off plot one to allow better
visibility would remove an attractive stone wall.

   This application was on the cusp of Policy H9. It was a matter of
    interpretation and how a Planning Inspector would interpret the policy,
    should the application be refused and an appeal lodged. This application
    was against the spirit of Policy H9, but Policy H9 had been worded to allow
    one for one replacement dwellings. The spirit of the policy when it had
    been drafted however was to allow one for one replacement buildings.

A possible ground for refusal could be the same as the previous refusal, in
that this revised proposal still did not enhance the area. Could this proposal
constitute infill development?

The Planning Development Manager replied that infill development could only
be applied where a new dwelling would be placed where none previously
existed.

Cllr Logan, a local Councillor, felt that the design had been improved, but the
mass and bulk would have a detrimental impact on the area, especially as the
site level rose towards plot two. The ridge height of the plot two dwelling had
increased and the dwelling would be three metres nearer to Plantation Road.

The garage would be slightly smaller, but this was outweighed by the taller
roof of the proposed dwelling. Although it would have a ‘catslide’ roof, this
elevation would face the garden. Little had changed and the tall roof could
result in the property becoming three storeys high. She did not think that
enough had been done to address the previous reason for refusal, therefore
the same reason for refusal still applied.

The Chairman offered Cllr Gray and the public speakers an additional minute
to sum up.

Cllr Gray reiterated that she did not think that enough had been done to
address the previous reason for refusal and that the loss of vegetation and the
size of plot two would be detrimental to the area.

Cllr Halstead, Liss Parish Council, stressed the importance of the view when
coming down Plantation Road. Plot two had come forward on the site and the
height of the dwelling would affect the area, contrary to Policy H9. She


                                       26      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
reassured the Committee that the Planning Inspector had dismissed previous
appeals against similar refusals in the area.

Mr Ellis, the agent, explained that there would be no loss of vegetation and
questioned what harm seeing the new dwellings would have to the view down
Plantation Road.

Cllr Logan felt that the application be refused for the same reason that the
previous application, 23041/010 had been refused.

Cllr Carew suggested that the siting of plot two could be added to the reason
for refusal.

Cllr Logan agreed to this amendment and proposed that the application be
refused for the following reason:

The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site where the
additional building mass, bulk and scale of the two replacement dwellings, the
siting of plot 2 and the high degree of hard surfacing would be unsympathetic
to the prevailing low density character of the area and would fail to retain or
enhance the landscape setting of the site within its surroundings, contrary to
Policies HE1, GS2 and H9 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second
Review.

Cllr Glass seconded the proposal.

Councillors voted on the proposal for refusal.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 7
Councillors voting FOR refusal, 1 Councillor voting AGAINST refusal and 4
Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, as set out in Part
1, Appendix B of these minutes.

The meeting closed at 11.07pm



…………………..
Chairman

During the course of the meeting 24 members of the public and no members
of the press were present.




                                       27        Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
                                                                           Annex A
12 April 2012
Planning Committee

Supplementary Matters to be considered as part of Planning Officer's Report
on Planning Applications.

 S1 Item 01                     Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House,
                                Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34
 39958/004/FUL
                                4JX


FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

Hampshire Garden Trust: The use of the walled garden for one house seems
unavoidable as no other uses or its re-instatement have been put forward. It is also
noted that the size of the proposed house, and particularly it height to the apex of
the roof, has been reduced. With regard to the proposals to up-grade the cottages I
have no adverse comments.


 S1 Item 04                     Charters Of Alton, 14 Winchester Road, Four
                                Marks, Alton, GU34 5HD
 22180/030/FUL


FURTHER CONSULTEE COMMENTS

The comments of the highway officer have now been received, raising no objection
to the application, and set out below:

The application is for two detached dwellings (in place of approved office units) with
associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing redundant car
showroom and workshop (revision to application 22180/028).

Access and the general layout for the whole site was covered in the original
application.

This proposal involves the employment use on the site only and as a result the only
new conditions required relate to the car parking.

The plans show the properties having three bedrooms plus a study which is likely to
be used as a fourth bedroom. As a result each dwelling will require three car parking
spaces plus secure cycle storage.




                                      28       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
 S1 Item 05                      Land at, Green Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville,
                                 PO8 0JX
 28889/024/RES


CORRECTIONS

Page 109 Planting will be undertaken in the first planting season.

AMENDMENTS RECEIVED

Pedestrian access linking Bovis Homes development onto Goring Avenue has now
been removed from the proposal.

FURTHER CONSULTEE COMMENTS

County Highway Officer - No objection subject to conditions. See below, the
highway officer did also suggest other conditions, one relating to access details
(covered by condition 18 of the outline permission), another requiring
implementation of the measures proposed to prevent surface water onto the
adjacent highway (the applicant will need implement the approved details, therefore
this condition is unnecessary). The County Highway Authority also suggested two
additional parking conditions which duplicate the requirements of the condition listed
below. Finally they request details of bin and cycle storage which have been
submitted to support this application.

Hampshire Astronomical Group - I am assured following our discussion that the new
lighting, although giving 1% ULR, this scheme will be subject to dimming technology
which of course is extremely helpful in reducing the overall amount of light from this
development. I also understand the problem you have regarding the adoption of 0%
ULR luminaries by the highways authority (Hampshire). I will endeavour to discuss
this issue with them shortly. In the future, when Clanfield is relit, if it is relit with
better controlled lighting (rather than the current 6-10%ULR) and again with
dimming technology, I am sure this would reduce the residual sky glow at the
observatory considerably.

FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

Additional 5 e-mails have been received raising the following concerns:

a) Reinforcing the concerns regarding pedestrian access to Storrington Road,
Duncton Road and Goring Avenue.

Officer comment: this issue is addressed in the main body of the report on page
111. However, in light of the concerns raised, the pedestrian link to Goring Avenue
has now been removed.

b) Concerns regarding the number of additional plans recently up loaded onto the
website. A deferral of consideration of the proposal is requested. The amendments
to the siting dwellings and house type, are minor and do not constitute a material


                                        29      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
change to the development as proposed

Officer comment: the changes made as a result of comments received from the
Planning Officer, the changes are detailed below.

Plots 139-142, moved in order to provide 10m gardens,
Plots 143-172, no changes,
Plot 173, moved forward and fence alignment changed to provide 10m garden,
Plots 174-179, no changes,
Plots 180-181, changed to H33 (3 bed social to comply with S106 mix),
Plots 182-203, no changes,
Plots 204-206, changed to provide 10m garden depths, housetypes on plot 205
swapped with plot 214,
Plots 207-211, no changes,
Plot 212, moved forward to provide 10m garden,
Plot 213, no change,
Plot 214, housetype swapped with plot 205,
Plots 215-220, no changes,
Plots 221-228, moved to provide 10m gardens to all plots,
Plots 229-241, no changes,
Plots 242-246, moved to provide 10m garden depths, plot 243 and garage handed,
Plots 247-261, no changes,
Plots 262-263, moved to provide 10m garden depth,
Plots 264-268, no changes,
Plots 269-275, moved to provide 10m garden depths

With regard to the housetypes the Arundel and Chester have been scheduled as 4/5
bedroom houses. The Salisbury housetype first floor plan has had the study reduced
in size and a wardrobe added to overcome your comment regarding the possibility
of a bed being added.

There have also been on going discussions relating to the internal highway
proposals and drainage between the applicant, the Council's drainage consultant,
the County Highway Authority and Environment Agency. The changes are a direct
response to their requirements to ensure that the development is acceptable in both
highway and drainage terms.

c) Low level bunding is provided on the southern boundary of the site (had not been
shown on the landscape plan)

d) The new main foul sewer proposed for Green Lane will be 225mm internal
diameter, this would be subject to design check by Southern Water as part of their
adoption process. The Surface water drainage pipes will be 225mm internal
diameter and subject to the design checks of HCC under their section 38 adoption
process. The proposed drainage system is considered acceptable by the Council's
Drainage Consultant, Hampshire Highways and Environment Agency.

e) Any additional improvements to the foul and surface water drainage systems
outside the site fall outside the remit of the controls of this planning application.




                                        30       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
f) The Green Lane and London Road access points were approved at outline stage,
any further details relating the roads will considered by HCC as part of their section
38 and 278 applications.

CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATION

Additional conditions

No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or
verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 43 metres
provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on
the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1 metre in height
above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter.
Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.

Before use of the development is commenced provision for the turning, loading,
unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been made within the site in
accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

Prior to the commencement of development and not withstanding the
Landscape details submitted details of the landscaping adjacent to 12 Storrington
Road shall been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and in
accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate British Standards or other
recognised codes of good practice. These works shall be carried out in the first
planting season after practical completion or first occupation of the
development, whichever is earlier, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the
Planning Authority.
Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed,
die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is
reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally
approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to enable proper
consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed development on existing
trees.


 S1 Item 06                     Land at, Green Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville,
                                PO8 0JX
 28889/025/RES


FURTHER CONSULTEE COMMENTS

County Highway Officer - No objection subject to conditions. See below, the
highway officer did also suggest other conditions, one relating to access details
(covered by condition 18 of the outline permission), another requiring
implementation of the measures proposed to prevent surface water onto the
adjacent highway (the applicant will need implement the approved details, therefore
this condition is unnecessary). The County Highway Authority also suggested two



                                      31      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
additional parking conditions which duplicate the requirements of the condition listed
below. Finally they request details of bin and cycle storage which have been
submitted to support this application.

Hampshire Astronomical Group - I am assured following our discussion that the new
lighting, although giving 1% ULR, this scheme will be subject to dimming technology
which of course is extremely helpful in reducing the overall amount of light from this
development. I also understand the problem you have regarding the adoption of 0%
ULR luminaries by the highways authority (Hampshire). I will endeavour to discuss
this issue with them shortly. In the future, when Clanfield is relit, if it is relit with
better controlled lighting (rather than the current 6-10%ULR) and again with
dimming technology, I am sure this would reduce the residual sky glow at the
observatory considerably.

FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

Additional 5 e-mails have been received raising the following concerns:

a) Reinforcing the concerns regarding pedestrian access to Storrington Road,
Duncton Road and Goring Avenue.

Officer comment: this issue is addressed in the main body of the report on page
111. However, in light of the concerns raised, the pedestrian link to Goring Avenue
has now been removed.

b) Concerns regarding the number of additional plans recently up loaded onto the
website. A deferral of consideration of the proposal is requested. The amendments
to the siting dwellings and house type, are minor and do not constitute a material
change to the development as proposed

Officer comment: the changes made as a result of comments received from the
Planning Officer, the changes are detailed below.

Plots 1 and 2, no changes,
Plot 3 changed to a brick version, from a rendered version,
Plot 4 flint panel added to flank elevation of garage facing road,
Plots 5-26, no changes,
Plot 27, blackened window added to flank elevation of garage facing road,
Plots 28-46, no changes,
Plots 47-48 and 50 garden fences moved to provide longer gardens,
Plot 49 moved forward to provide 10m garden,
Plot 51, no change,
Plot 52, fence alignment changed to provide 10m garden,
Plots 53-68, no changes,
Plot 69, garage and house handed to provide 10m garden to plot 52,
Plot 70, no change,
Plots 71-75, moved forward to provide 10m garden, plot 75 now H33 (3 bed social to
comply with S106 mix),
Plot 76, changed to H33 (3 bed social to comply with S106 mix),
Plots 77-128, no changes,


                                        32      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
Plot 129, moved forward to provide 10m garden,
Plots 130-138, no changes, the road in front of plots 131-132 has been turned to
facilitate a 10m garden to Bovis plot 139.

There have also been on going discussions relating to the internal highway
proposals and drainage between the applicant, the Council's drainage consultant,
the County Highway Authority and Environment Agency. The changes are a direct
response to their requirements to ensure that the development is acceptable in both
highway and drainage terms.

a) There is provision for emergency access by plots 58 - 62

b) Regarding safety arrangements surrounding the pond, the applicant has
proposed planting to surround the pond. A condition is attached seeking to secure
details of any border to the pond.

CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATION

Amendment to condition 7

All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details and in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate
British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. These works shall be
carried out in the first planting season. Any trees or plants which, within a period
of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or
defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of
species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in
writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason - To ensure the provision and establishment of a reasonable standard of
landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

Additional conditions

No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or
verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 43 metres
provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on
the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1 metre in height
above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter.
Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.

Before use of the development is commenced provision for the turning, loading,
unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been made within the site in
accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

No development shall start on site until a detailed boundary treatment details
surrounding the proposed pond to the north of the Green Lane access has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall
include details of the positions and design of the boundary treatment to be erected.
The approved details shall be fully implemented before the first occupation on site


                                      33      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason - In the interest of public health and safety.


 S1 Item 01                      Old Heath Lodge, Hill Brow Road, Liss, GU33
                                 7QD
 SDNP/23941/011/FUL


FURTHER CONSULTEE COMMENTS

Liss Parish Council - Strong objection maintained. The revised application makes
little effort to address previous reasons for refusal. There is no change to plot 1 and
the ridge height of plot 2 is actually increased by over 10%. Liss Parish Council
maintains that the proposal continues to be an overdevelopment of the site where
the additional building, mass, bulk and scale of two large properties to replace one
sub-divided (230sq.m) property doubles the original built area and constitutes “infill”
which would be unsympathetic to the prevailing low density character of the area
and would fail to retain or enhance the landscape setting of the site within its
surroundings. This is contrary to the clear intention of Policy H9 and would set a
dangerous precedent, which cumulatively would erode the special character of the
area.

FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

One further representation has been received raising the following issues:

a) should retain and preserve character dwellings;
b) concern about principle of allowing a small annexe to be replaced with a separate
large dwelling;
c) concern about precedent as other annexes exist in the area;

d) overdevelopment and impact on character of Special Housing Area;
e) no significant changes since previous refusal of permission so previous reason
for refusal should stand.




                                       34      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
                                  Part 1


                EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL


                 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

                   Applications determined by the
                Council as the Local Planning Authority

                               APPENDIX A
                                                                    PS.366/2012
                                                                   12 April 2012



    PROPOSAL         TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS (IN PLACE OF
                     APPROVED OFFICE UNITS) WITH ASSOCIATED
                     PARKING AND LANDSCAPING FOLLOWING
                     DEMOLITION OF EXISTING REDUNDANT CAR
                     SHOWROOM AND WORKSHOP (REVISION TO
                     APPLICATION 22180/028)
    LOCATION:        Charters Of Alton, 14 Winchester Road, Four Marks, Alton,
                     GU34 5HD
    REFERENCE        22180/030/FUL/TW
    NO:

1        The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration
         of three years from the date of this planning permission.
         Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
         Act 1990

2        Notwithstanding any indication of materials that may have been given in
         the application or in the absence of such information, no development
         shall start on site until samples / details including manufacturers details
         of all the materials to be used for external facing and roofing have been
         submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The
         development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
         details.
         Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the
         approved development harmonise with the surroundings.

3        No development shall start on site until plans of the site showing
         details of the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor
         levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the
         proposed completed height of the development and any retaining walls
         have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.


                                     35      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
    The details shall clearly identify the relationship of the proposed ground
    levels and proposed completed height with adjacent buildings. The
    development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the
    approved details.
    Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the
    new development and adjacent buildings and public areas.

4   Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification
    report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the
    Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby
    permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the
    predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or,
    provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before
    development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an
    equivalent energy saving.
    The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of
    assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to
    confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to
    provide the required energy savings.
    The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be
    maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified
    level for the lifetime of the development.

    (Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are
    required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures
    incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building
    Regulations).
    Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary
    mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

5   No development shall start on site until a fully detailed landscape and
    planting scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in
    writing by the Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in
    accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the
    recommendations of the appropriate British Standards or other
    recognised codes of good practice. These works shall be carried out in
    the first planting season after practical completion or first
    occupation of the development, whichever is earlier, unless otherwise
    first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
    Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are
    removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be
    replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size
    and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing
    by the Planning Authority.

    Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to
    enable proper consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed
    development on existing trees.




                                36      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
6    No development shall start on site until details of any surface-water
     drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning
     Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface-water
     drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The
     development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
     details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be
     retained thereafter.
     Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage.

7    No development shall start on site until the access, including the
     footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of
     2.4 metres by 43 metres provided in both directions. The lines of sight
     splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1 metre in height
     above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so
     thereafter.
     Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway
     safety.

8    Before use of the development is commenced, the existing access(es)
     from the site to Winchester Road shall be permanently stopped up and
     effectively closed, with the footway provided or verge reinstated, in
     accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by
     the Planning Authority.
     Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

9    Before use of the development is commenced provision for parking
     and turning shall have been made within the site in accordance with the
     approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes
     thereafter.
     Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the
     approved development.

10   Any gates provided shall be set back a distance of 4.5m from the edge of
     the carriageway of the adjoining highway.
     Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

11   No development shall start on site until the following details have been
     submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority;

         a specification of the type of construction for the roads and footpaths,
          including all relevant horizontal cross-sections and longitudinal
          sections showing the existing and proposed levels together with
          details of street lighting and the method of disposing surface water;
         a programme for making up the roads and footpaths;
         a schedule indicating proposals for the long-term maintenance of all
          publicly shared pedestrian and vehicular areas.
     The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
     details before any part of the development is occupied and shall
     thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved details, unless
     otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.


                                 37      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
     Reason - To ensure that the roads and footpaths are constructed and
     maintained to a satisfactory standard.

12   Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not
     be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local
     Planning Authority (LPA), which may be given for those parts of the site
     where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable
     risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance
     with the approved details.
     Reason - To avoid contamination of the chalk aquifer in accordance with
     Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control.

13   No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other
     than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority
     (LPA), which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been
     demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled
     waters. Should such details be submitted to and approved by the LPA
     the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval
     details.
     Reason - To avoid contamination of the chalk aquifer in accordance with
     Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control.

14   No development shall start on site until the following details have been
     submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:-
     (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments
     designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the
     site.
     (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the
     extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential
     risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised
     in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless
     otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as
     unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and
     proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of
     contamination found on site.
     and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority)
     (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a
     condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to
     human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical
     environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken,
     proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of
     works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining
     details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion
     of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued
     monitoring of identified pollutant linkages.

     The above site works and details submitted shall be in accordance with
     the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in
     accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model
     Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.


                                 38      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
     Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users
     of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to
     controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the
     development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to
     workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy
     P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

15   Before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless
     otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification
     report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried
     out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation
     scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to
     and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
     The verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in
     accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent
     person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model
     Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
     Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users
     of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to
     controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the
     development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to
     workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy
     P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

16   All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that
     contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the
     development site and details of the contamination shall be reported
     immediately in writing to the Planning Authority.

     Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have
     been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:-
     (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments
     designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the
     site.
      (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the
     extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential
     risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised
     in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless
     otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as
     unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and
     proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of
     contamination found on site
     and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority)

     (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a
     condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to
     human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical
     environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken,
     proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of
     works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining


                                 39      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
     details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion
     of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued
     monitoring of identified pollutant linkages;

     and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless
     otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification
     report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried
     out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation
     scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to
     and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

     The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in
     accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent
     person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model
     Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
     Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users
     of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to
     controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the
     development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to
     workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy
     P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

17   An acoustic report to assess the noise from road traffic on the A31 shall
     be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing
     before the development commences. Any works which form part of the
     noise protection recommendations shall be completed before any
     dwelling is occupied unless an alternative period is agreed in writing by
     the Local Planning Authority. Such noise protection measures shall
     thereafter be maintained and operated in accordance with the approved
     scheme.
     Reason - To protect the amenities of the future occupiers of the dwellings.

18   Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning
     (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any
     Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within
     Classes A, B, or C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the
     prior consent of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal
     planning application.
     Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the
     effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality
     and/or neighbouring properties.

19   All works hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with
     the approved Arboricultural Method Statement and associated tree
     protection plan.
     Reason - To ensure that the trees on and around the site are adequately
     protected from damage to their health and /or amenity value.

20   Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans no
     development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing
     details of the provisions of bin storage/collection within the site have been


                                 40      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
         submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The
         development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
         before the use of the development is commenced and shall be retained
         thereafter.
         Reason - To ensure adequate provision within the site.

21       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
         with the following approved plans and particulars:

         Application Form
         Covering Letter 08/02/2012
         Design and Access Statement
         Highways and Drainage Statement
         Geo-Environmental Site Assessment
         Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement
         Landscape Maintenance Schedule
         925/01C - Landscape Planning Plan
         D110221/LP/01 - Location Plan
         D110221/ESL/01 - Existing Site Layout
         FM-ALT-01 - Planning Layout
         FM-ALT-02 - Floor Plans and Elevations Type 3B.2
         FM-ALT-03 - Street Scene Elevations A
         FM-ALT-04 - Street Scene Elevations B
         FM-ALT-05 - Street Scene Elevations C
         FM-ALT-06 - Block Plan
         FM-ALT-07 - Enclosures Details
         FM-ALT-08 - Garage Details Plots 5, 7 & 8
         FM-ALT-09 - Tracking Plan

         Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1         The Council has granted permission because:

          The proposed development is acceptable in terms of its layout, scale and
          design in relation to the character of the area. The development would
          incorporate adequate provision for the parking and turning of vehicles
          and would not harm the amenities of neighbouring residents.
          Employment reprovision within the site is also acceptable. The proposal
          is, therefore, in accordance with the relevant policies of the East
          Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

          It is therefore considered that subject to compliance with the attached
          conditions and taking into account all other material planning
          considerations, including the provisions of the development plan, the
          proposal would be acceptable. This also includes a consideration of
          whether the decision to grant permission is compatible with the Human
          Rights Act 1998.




                                    41      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
2   The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions
    relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of
    conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to
    discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the
    appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's
    website.

3   The calculation of predicted energy requirement for the development
    should include space heating, hot water heating, cooking, and lighting,
    cold and hot appliances and wet appliances. Other energy consumption
    associated with the development such as street lighting and utilities must
    also be included.

    In some cases, where proven low carbon fuel is used to provide energy
    for the above, calculations can include the renewable energy contribution
    (kWh/yr) based on CO2 savings (kg CO2 /yr)

    To calculate the predicted CO2 emissions from each dwelling, SAP 2005
    is a suitable method to be adopted, and one which is used by the
    Building Regulations, it also provides a good level of design flexibility.
    The predicted energy consumption using SAP methodology must be
    increased by about 9% to allow for hot appliances, cold appliances and
    wet appliances and cooking, which are not considered by SAP 2005. It is
    recommended that an Authorised SAP Assessor is used to prepare the
    calculations but this is not necessary in every case.

    For further practical information regarding the 10% renewable rule, see
    the Energy Saving trust guidance booklet (CE190)
    www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/housingbuildings/CE1
    90%20-%2010%20per%20cent%20guide.pdf

    Other guidance can be found in BREEAM: ecohomes document, visit
    www.Ecohomes.org

    For SAP 5005 visit the BRE web site.

    You may contact us if you have any queries regarding the calculation
    methods, we can also offer a competitive calculation service from within
    this council by qualified energy assessors if you are having difficulty
    meeting this requirement.




                               42       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
    PROPOSAL          RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR 137
                      DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING,
                      LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE PURSUANT TO
                      OUTLINE APPLICATION 28889/022 please note this
                      application is one of two, which combined, cover
                      details for the proposed residential dwellings
    LOCATION:         Land at, Green Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville, PO8 0JX
    REFERENCE         28889/024/RES/AE
    NO:

1        All works hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with
         the approved Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by ACD
         Arboricultural dated 12/12/2011 and Tree Protection Plan (drawing
         number BSH17858-03-BH) received by the Planning Authority on 13
         January 2012.
         Reason - To ensure that the trees on and around the site are adequately
         protected from damage to their health and/or amenity value.

2        Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of The Town and
         Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) Order
         1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no windows shall
         at any time be inserted in the first floor southern side elevation of Plot 187
         of the development hereby permitted.
         Reason - To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining
         residential property.

3        Notwithstanding any indication shown on the approved plans, all
         bathroom and en-suite windows of the development hereby permitted
         shall at all times be glazed with obscure glass.
         Reason - To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining
         residential properties.

4        Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning
         (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any
         Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within
         Classes A, B and C of Part 1 shall be carried out without the prior consent
         of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal planning
         application.
         Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the
         effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

5        Before use of the development is commenced provision for parking,
         including garages, shall have been made within the site in accordance
         with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes
         thereafter.
         Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the
         approved development.




                                     43       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
6    Prior to the first occupations of the development, details of the
     management company set up to secure the management of non adopted
     roads and foul and surface drainage shall be submitted to an agreed in
     writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented
     as approved.
     Reason - To ensure the future maintenance of unadopted roads and
     drainage is secured in perpetuity.

7    All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with
     the approved details and in accordance with the recommendations of the
     appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice.
     These works shall be carried out in the first planting season. Any trees
     or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed,
     die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon
     as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as
     originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the
     Planning Authority.
     Reason - To ensure the provision and establishment of a reasonable
     standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

8    Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification
     report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the
     Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby
     permitted incorporates measures compliant with Code Level 4 of the
     Code for Sustainable Homes.
     The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of
     assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to
     confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to
     provide the required energy savings.
     The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be
     maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified
     level for the lifetime of the development.
     Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary
     mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

9    No development shall start on site until the access, including the
     footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of
     2.4 metres by 43 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans.
     The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free
     of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent
     carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter.
     Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway
     safety.

10   Before use of the development is commenced provision for the
     turning, loading, unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been
     made within the site in accordance with the approved details and shall be
     retained thereafter.
     Reason - In the interests of highway safety.




                                 44      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
11   Prior to the commencement of development and not withstanding
     the Landscape details submitted details of the landscaping adjacent to
     12 Storrington Road shall been submitted to and approved in writing by
     the Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with
     the approved details and in accordance with the recommendations of the
     appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice.
     These works shall be carried out in the first planting season after
     practical completion or first occupation of the development,
     whichever is earlier, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the
     Planning Authority.
     Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are
     removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be
     replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size
     and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing
     by the Planning Authority.
     Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to
     enable proper consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed
     development on existing trees.

12   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
     with the following approved plans and particulars:

     Code for sustainable homes document
     Code for sustainable homes pre-assessment report
     Design and access statement
     Landscape management and maintenance plan for plot landscape
     Landscape specification
     Arboricultural implications assessment
     Arboricultural method statement
     Development visuals
     Specification for Archaeological evaluation LP-1193L-SAEv1.0
     Specification for Archaeological Excavation LP-1193L-WSI-v1.2
     Archaeological Evaluation Report LP1193-AER-v1.0
     Archaeological Appraisal CSa 1299_004
     18-1687-002G Planning layout PV orientation
     18-1687-BOV-001L - Planning layout
     18-1687-BOV-002A - Location Plan
     18-1687-002J - Planning Layout
     18-1687-BOV-003A - Storey heights layout
     18-1687-BOV-005A - Parking strategy
     18-1687-BOV-006A - External enclosures layout
     18-1687-BOV-007A - Bin and cycle storage
     18-1687-BOV-008 - External enclosure details
     18-1687-BOV-009B - External finishes layout
     18-1687-BOV-010B - Affordable housing layout
     18-1687-BOV-011A - Character areas
     18-1687-012 - Phasing plan
     18-1687-BOV-013A - Hard surfacing layout
     18-1687-BOV-014A - Street scenes
     18-1748-BOV-WHR-AR-001 - Arundel elevations


                                45      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
18-1748-BOV-WHR-AR-002 - Arundel elevations
18-1748-BOV-WHR-AR-003 - Arundel floor plans
18-1748-BOV-WHR-CH-001 - Chester elevations
18-1748-BOV-WHR-CH-002 - Chester floor plans
18-1748-BOV-WHR-CA-001 - Canterbury elevations
18-1748-BOV-WHR-CA-002 - Canterbury floor plans
18-1687-BOV-WHR-SA-001A - Salisbury elevations
18-1687-BOV-WHR-SA-002B - Salisbury floor plans
18-1748-BOV-WHR-SH-001 - Sheringham elevations
18-1687-BOV-WHR-SH-002A - Sheringham floor plans
18-1748-BOV-WHR-H34-001 - Type H34 elevations
18-1748-BOV-WHR-H34-002 - Type H34 floor plans
18-1687-BOV-WHR-H31-001 - Type H31 elevations
18-1687-BOV-WHR-H31-002A - Type H31 floor plans
18-1687-BOV-WHR-H31-003 - Type H31 elevations
18-1687-BOV-WHR-H31-004A - Type H31 floor plans
18-1687-BOV-WHR-1BF-001 - Type 1BF elevations
18-1687-BOV-WHR-1BF-002 - Type 1BF floor plans
18-1687-BOV-RLE-WIN-001B - Winchester elevations
18-1687-BOV-RLE-WIN-002B - Winchester elevations
18-1687-BOV-RLE-WIN-003B - Winchester floor plans
18-1748-BOV-RLE-ARN-001 - Arundel elevations
18-1748-BOV-RLE-ARN-002 - Arundel elevations
18-1748-BOV-RLE-ARN-003 - Arundel floor plans
18-1748-BOV-RLE-CHE-001 - Chester elevations
18-1748-BOV-RLE-CHE-002 - Chester floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-WIN-001B - Winchester elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-WIN-002B - Winchester elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-WIN-003B - Winchester floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-ARU-001A -Arundel elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-ARU-002 -Arundel elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-ARU-003A -Arundel floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-CHE-001A - Chester elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-CHE-002A - Chester elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-CHE-003B - Chester elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-CHE-004A - Chester floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-HAM-001 - Hamilton elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-HAM-002 - Hamilton floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-CA-001A - Canterbury elevations
18-1748-BOV-VGH-CA-002 - Canterbury elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-CA-003B - Canterbury floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-CA-004 - Canterbury plot 205 section
18-1687-BOV-VGH-SA-001A - Salisbury elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-SA-002A - Salisbury elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-SA-003B - Salisbury floor plans
18-1748-BOV-VGH-SH-001 - Sheringham elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-SH-002A - Sheringham floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-DUR-001 - Durrell elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-DUR-002 - Durrell floor plans
18-1748-BOV-VGH-SW-001 - Southwold elevations


                        46     Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
18-1748-BOV-VGH-SW-002 - Southwold elevations
18-1748-BOV-VGH-SW-003 - Southwold elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-SW-004A - Southwold floor plans
18-1748-BOV-VGH-AM-001 - Amberley elevations
18-1748-BOV-VGH-AM-002 - Amberley floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H35-001 - Type H35 elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H35-002 - Type H35 elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H35-003 - Type H35 floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H33-001A - Type H33 elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H33-002 - Type H33 elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H33-003A - Type H33 floor plans
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H31-001A - Type H31 elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H31-002A - Type H31 elevations
18-1687-BOV-VGH-H31-003B - Type H31 floor plans
18-1687-BOV-GAR-001 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-002 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-003 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-004 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-005 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-006 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-007 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-008 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-009 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-010 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-011 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-BOV-GAR-012 - Garage floor plan and elevations
BSH17858-12BOVIS - Landscape proposals sheet 1 of 4
BSH17858-12bBOVIS - Landscape proposals sheet 2 of 4
BSH17858-12BOVIS - Landscape proposals sheet 3 of 4
BSH17858-12BOVIS - Landscape proposals sheet 4 of 4
BSH17858-03-BH - Tree protection plan (sheet 1 of 2)
BSH17858-03-BH - Tree protection plan (sheet 2of 2)
18-1687-DWH-4593:P01 - Indicative foul and surface water strategy
18-1687-BOV-4593:P05 - Proposed adoptable lighting design
18-1687-BOV-4593:P03 - Road and House levels layout
4593:900B Drainage Layout Sheet 1
4593:901B Drainage Layout Sheet 2
4593:902C Drainage Layout Sheet 3
4593:903D Drainage Layout Sheet 4
4593:904B Off-Site Foul Drainage Layout
4593:910 Levels Layout Sheet 1
4593:911 Levels Layout Sheet 2
4593:912 Levels Layout Sheet 3
4593:915 Infrastructure Roads Layout
4593:920A Surfacing Layout
4593:930 Longitudinal Sections Sheet 1
4593:931 Longitudinal Sections Sheet 2
4593:932 Longitudinal Sections Sheet 3
4593:933 Longitudinal Sections Sheet 4
4593:940 Construction Details Sheet 1


                          47     Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
         4593:941 Construction Details Sheet 2
         4593:942 Construction Details Sheet 3
         4593:950A New Access Works London Road
         4593:951A New Access Works Green Lane

         Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1         The Council has granted permission because:

          The proposed development accords with the requirements of the
          development brief and proposes a high quality design which is
          considered to integrate with the existing residential developments within
          the immediate vicinity. The scale, form and siting of the units would sit
          comfortably within the streetscene. Overall, the proposal is considered to
          be a good design solution, which would bring forward a significant
          number of residential dwellings in accordance with the outline planning
          permission. The development is considered to comply with the policies
          set out in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

          It is therefore considered that subject to compliance with the attached
          conditions and taking into account all other material planning
          considerations, including the provisions of the development plan, the
          proposal would be acceptable. This also includes a consideration of
          whether the decision to grant permission is compatible with the Human
          Rights Act 1998.

2         The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions
          relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of
          conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to
          discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the
          appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's
          website.




                                     48       Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
    PROPOSAL         RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR 138
                     DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING,
                     LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE PURSUANT TO
                     OUTLINE APPLICATION 28889/022 please note this
                     application is one of two, which combined, cover
                     details for the proposed residential dwellings
    LOCATION:        Land at, Green Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville, PO8 0JX
    REFERENCE        28889/025/RES/AE
    NO:

1        All works hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with
         the approved Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by ACD
         Arboricultural dated 12/12/2011 and Tree Protection Plan (drawing
         number BSH17858-03-BHS) received by the Planning Authority on 13
         January 2012
         Reason - To ensure that the trees on and around the site are adequately
         protected from damage to their health and/or amenity value.

2        Notwithstanding any indication shown on the approved plans, all
         bathroom and en-suite windows of the development hereby permitted
         shall at all times be glazed with obscure glass.
         Reason - To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining
         residential properties.

3        Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning
         (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any
         Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within
         Classes A, B and C of Part 1 shall be carried out without the prior consent
         of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal planning
         application.
         Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the
         effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

4        Before use of the development is commenced provision for parking,
         including garages, shall have been made within the site in accordance
         with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes
         thereafter.
         Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the
         approved development.

5        Prior to the first occupations of the development, details of the
         management company set up to secure the management of non adopted
         roads and foul and surface drainage shall be submitted to an agreed in
         writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented
         as approved.
         Reason - To ensure the future maintenance of unadopted roads and
         drainage is secured in perpetuity.




                                     49      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
6    No development shall start on site until a detailed boundary treatment
     details to the southern edge of the landscape buffer to the northern
     boundary plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
     Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the positions and
     design of the boundary treatment to be erected. The approved details
     shall be fully implemented before the first occupation on site and shall be
     retained thereafter.
     Reason - To ensure that the approved landscaping is preserved in the
     interest of visual amenity and amenities of the residents of the locality.

7    All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with
     the approved details and in accordance with the recommendations of the
     appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice.
     These works shall be carried out in the first planting season. Any trees
     or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed,
     die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon
     as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as
     originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the
     Planning Authority.
     Reason - To ensure the provision and establishment of a reasonable
     standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

8    Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification
     report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the
     Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby
     permitted incorporates measures compliant with Code Level 4 of the
     Code for Sustainable Homes.
     The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of
     assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to
     confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to
     provide the required energy savings.
     The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be
     maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified
     level for the lifetime of the development.
     Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary
     mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

9    No development shall start on site until the access, including the
     footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of
     2.4 metres by 43 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans.
     The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free
     of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent
     carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter.
     Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway
     safety.

10   Before use of the development is commenced provision for the
     turning, loading, unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been
     made within the site in accordance with the approved details and shall be
     retained thereafter.


                                 50      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
     Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

11   No development shall start on site until a detailed boundary treatment
     details surrounding the proposed pond to the north of the Green Lane
     access has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning
     Authority. The plan shall include details of the positions and design of the
     boundary treatment to be erected. The approved details shall be fully
     implemented before the first occupation on site and shall be retained
     thereafter.
     Reason - In the interest of public health and safety.

12   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
     with the following approved plans and particulars:

     i-therm Energy statement (Code for sustainable homes pre-assessment.
     Design and access statement
     Landscape management and maintenance plan for plot landscape Rev B
     Landscape specification
     Landscape Habitat Enhancement Plan
     Tree report
     Arboricultural implications assessment
     Arboricultural method statement
     Development visuals
     Specification for Archaeological evaluation LP-1193L-SAEv1.0
     Specification for Archaeological Excavation LP-1193L-WSI-v1.2
     Archaeological Evaluation Report LP1193-AER-v1.0
     Archaeological Appraisal CSa 1299_004
     18-1687-002G - Planning layout PV orientation
     18-1687-002J - Planning layout
     18-1687-DWH-001 K - Planning layout
     18-1687-DWH-002 A - Location plan
     18-1687-DWH-003A - Storey heights layout
     18-1687-DWH-005A - Parking strategy
     18-1687-DWH-006A - External enclosures layout
     18-1687-DWH-007A - Bin and cycle storage
     18-1687-DWH-008 - External enclosure details
     18-1687-DWH-009A - External finishes layout
     18-1687-DWH-010B - Affordable housing layout
     18-1687-DWH-011A - Character areas
     18-1687-012 - Phasing plan
     18-1687-DWH-013A - Hard surfacing layout
     18-1687-DWH-014A - Street scenes
     18-1687-DWH-017 - Street scenes to Green Lane
     18-1687-DWH-WDM-H526-001A - Type H526 elevations
     18-1687-DWH-WDM-H526-002 - Type H526 floor plans
     18-1687-DWH-WDM-H577-001 - Type H577 elevations
     18-1687-DWH-WDM-H577-002 - Type H577 floor plans
     18-1687-DWH-WDM-H421-001 - Type H421 elevations
     18-1687-DWH-WDM-H421-002 - Type H421 floor plans
     18-1687-DWH-WDM-H497-001 - Type H497 elevations


                                 51      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H497-002 - Type H497 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H436-001A - Type H436 elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H436-002A - Type H436 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H436-003 - Type H436 elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H436-004 - Type H436 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H469-001 - Type H469 elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H469-002 - Type H469 elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H469-003 - Type H469 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H433-001 - Type H433 elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H433-002 - Type H433 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-WDM-P341-001 - Type H341 elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-P341-002 - Type H341 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-WDM-P341-003 - Type H341 elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-P341-004 - Type H341 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H316-001 - Type H316 elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-H316-002 - Type H316 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-WDM-JADE-001 - Type jade elevations
18-1687-DWH-WDM-JADE-002 - Type jade floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H526-001A - Type H526 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H526-002A - Type H526 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H577-001 - Type H577 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H577-002 - Type H577 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H577-003 - Type H577 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H577-004 - Type H577 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H421-001 - Type H421 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H421-002 - Type H421 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H421-003 - Type H421 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H497-001 - Type H497 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H497-002 - Type H497 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H497-003 - Type H497 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H436-001 - Type H436 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H436-002 - Type H436 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H433-001 - Type H433 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H433-002 - Type H433 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-P341-001 - Type H341 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-P341-002 - Type H341 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H316-001 - Type H316 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H316-002 - Type H316 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H33-001A - Type H33 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H33-002B - Type H33 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H31-001A - Type H31 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-H31-002B - Type H31 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLE-1BF-001 - Type 1BF elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLE-1BF-002 - Type 1BF floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H421-001 - Type H421 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H421-002 - Type H421 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H469-001 - Type H469 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H469-002 - Type H469 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H316-001 - Type H316 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H316-002 - Type H316 elevations


                       52     Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H316-003 - Type H316 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-JADE-001 - Type jade elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-JADE-002 - Type jade elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-JADE-003 - Type jade floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H35-001 - Type H35 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H35-002A - Type H35 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H33-001A - Type H33 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H33-002B - Type H33 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H31-001 - Type H31 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H31-002 - Type H31 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H31-003 - Type H31 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H31-004 - Type H31 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H31-005 - Type H31 elevations
18-1687-DWH-RLM-H31-006 - Type H31 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H526-001 - Type H526 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H526-002 - Type H526 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H577-001 - Type H577 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H577-002 - Type H577 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H421-001 - Type H421 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H421-002 - Type H421 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H436-001 - Type H436 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H436-002 - Type H436 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H436-003 - Type H436 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H469-001 - Type H469 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H469-002 - Type H469 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H433-001 - Type H433 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H433-002 - Type H433 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H316-001 - Type H316 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H316-002 - Type H316 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H35-001 - Type H35 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H35-002A - Type H35 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H33-001 - Type H33 elevations
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H33-002 - Type H33 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-VGH-H33-003A - Type H33 floor plans
18-1687-DWH-GAR-001 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-DWH-GAR-002 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-DWH-GAR-003 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-DWH-GAR-004 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-DWH-GAR-005 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-DWH-GAR-006 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-DWH-GAR-007 - Garage floor plan and elevations
18-1687-DWH-4593:P05 - Proposed adoptable lighting design
18-1687-DWH-4593:P01 - Foul and surface water drainage strategy
BSH17858-11BSH rev A - Landscape proposals sheet 1 of 4
BSH17858-11BSH rev A - Landscape proposals sheet 2 of 4
BSH17858-11BSH rev A - Landscape proposals sheet 3 of 4
BSH17858-11BSH rev A - Landscape proposals sheet 4 of 4
BSH17858-03-BHS - Tree protection plan
BSH17858-14 rev A - North and East boundary Landscape Proposals
18-1687-DWH-4593:P02 - Road and house levels layout


                        53     Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
         18-1687-BOV-4593:P03 - Road and house levels layout
         4593:900B Drainage Layout Sheet 1
         4593:901B Drainage Layout Sheet 2
         4593:902C Drainage Layout Sheet 3
         4593:903D Drainage Layout Sheet 4
         4593:904B Off-Site Foul Drainage Layout
         4593:910 Levels Layout Sheet 1
         4593:911 Levels Layout Sheet 2
         4593:912 Levels Layout Sheet 3
         4593:915 Infrastructure Roads Layout
         4593:920A Surfacing Layout
         4593:930 Longitudinal Sections Sheet 1
         4593:931 Longitudinal Sections Sheet 2
         4593:932 Longitudinal Sections Sheet 3
         4593:933 Longitudinal Sections Sheet 4
         4593:940 Construction Details Sheet 1
         4593:941 Construction Details Sheet 2
         4593:942 Construction Details Sheet 3
         4593:950A New Access Works London Road
         4593:951A New Access Works Green Lane
         4593:26 Amenity Pond, Infiltration Pond and Swale Sections

         Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1         The Council has granted permission because:

          The proposed development accords with the requirements of the
          development brief and proposes a high quality design, which is
          considered to integrate with the existing residential developments within
          the immediate vicinity. The scale, form and siting of the units would sit
          comfortably within the streetscene. Overall, the proposal is considered to
          be a good design solution which would bring forward a significant number
          of residential dwellings in accordance with the outline planning
          permission. The development is considered to comply with the policies
          set out in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

          It is therefore considered that subject to compliance with the attached
          conditions and taking into account all other material planning
          considerations, including the provisions of the development plan, the
          proposal would be acceptable. This also includes a consideration of
          whether the decision to grant permission is compatible with the Human
          Rights Act 1998.




                                     54     Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
2    The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions
     relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of
     conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to
     discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the
     appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's
     website.
——————————————————————————————————
    PROPOSAL          TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED
                      ACCESS OFF TOWER CLOSE, PARKING AND
                      LANDSCAPING (AS AMENDED BY PLANS RECEIVED
                      23/02/2012 AND 21/3/2012)
    LOCATION:         land rear of 54 - 58 Headley Road, Liphook, GU30 7NP
    REFERENCE         27470/013/FUL/NP
    NO:

1         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration
          of three years from the date of this planning permission.
          Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
          Act 1990

2         Notwithstanding any indication of materials that may have been given in
          the application or in the absence of such information, no development
          shall start on site until samples / details including manufacturers details
          of all the materials to be used for external facing and roofing have been
          submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The
          development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
          details.
          Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the
          approved development harmonise with the surroundings.

3         No development shall start on site until plans of the site showing
          details of the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed external leaf
          DPC level, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives,
          garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the
          development and any retaining walls have been submitted to and
          approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall clearly
          identify the relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed
          completed height with adjacent buildings. The details shall include the
          nomination of a competent person for the purpose of surveying and
          certifying that the "as built" external leaf DPC level is in accordance with
          the approved details. This certification shall be submitted in writing to the
          Planning Authority on completion of the foundations and before any
          ground floor development commenced. The development thereafter shall
          be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
          Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the
          new development and adjacent buildings and public areas




                                      55      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
4   Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification
    report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the
    Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby
    permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the
    predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or,
    provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before
    development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an
    equivalent energy saving.
    The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of
    assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to
    confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to
    provide the required energy savings.
    The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be
    maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified
    level for the lifetime of the development.

    (Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are
    required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures
    incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building
    Regulations).
    Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary
    mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

5   No development shall start on site until details of a scheme for foul
    and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in
    writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision
    for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of
    hardstanding. The development shall be carried out in accordance with
    the approved details before any part of the development is occupied
    and shall be retained thereafter.
    Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage.
    Note: The applicant is requested to contact the Council's Drainage
    Consultant as soon as possible regarding the above condition.

6   No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent
    surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have
    been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The
    development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
    details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be
    retained thereafter.
    Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and
    avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.

7   No development shall start on site until the access, including the
    footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of
    2.4 metres by 11 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans.
    The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free
    of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent
    carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter.




                                56      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
     Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway
     safety.

8    Before use of the development is commenced provision for the
     turning, loading, unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been
     made within the site in accordance with the approved details and shall be
     retained thereafter. These spaces shall be retained for parking and not
     used for storage of boats, caravans or trailers.
     Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

9    Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning
     (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any
     Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within
     Class/es A to C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the
     prior consent of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal
     planning application.
     Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the
     effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality
     and the amenities of neighbours.

10   No development shall start on site until a detailed boundary treatment
     plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning
     Authority. The plan shall include details of the positions, design,
     materials/species of the boundary treatments to be erected/planted. The
     approved details shall be fully implemented before the use of the
     development is commenced and/or any part of the development is
     occupied and shall be retained thereafter.
     Reason - To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the area
     and to safeguard the privacy and amenities of the residents of the locality.

11   No development shall start on site, including demolition, until details
     of the design, layout, position, depth/height, dimension, and level, of all
     building foundations, overhead and underground services, trenches,
     drains, ditches, and other excavations/installations on site shall be
     submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The
     works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
     Reason - To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be
     retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability.

12   All works hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with
     the approved Arboricultural Method Statement dated December 2011
     prepared by tree:fabrik, and following the sequence of events set out in
     email dated 26 March 2012 from Alan Richardson of tree:fabrik; and Tree
     Protection Plan prepared by tree fabrik (drawing number tf 851/TPP/200)
     received by the Planning Authority on 21/3/2012.
     Reason - To ensure that the trees on and around the site are adequately
     protected from damage to their health and /or amenity value.

13   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
     with the following approved plans and particulars:



                                 57      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
          Supporting letter dated 20 December 2011
          Paper Map Copying Licence
          Design Statement
          Energy and Environmental Impact Statement
          Arboricultural Development Report
          Drg no. 01/A - location and block plan
          Drg no. 03/E - proposed layout plan
          Drg no. 04/C - house type a floor plans
          Drg no. 05/C - house type a elevations
          Drg no. 08 - drainage plan and sections
          Drg no. 851/TS/100 - tree survey
          Drg no. 851/TPP/200C - tree removal/protection plan
          Drg no. /09 - drive sections

          Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1         The Council has granted permission because:

          The proposed development would be in keeping with the pattern of
          development in the area. Protection measures would ensure that the
          protected trees are retained. There would be no adverse impact on
          highways safety or on neighbours' amenities. The proposal would be in
          accordance with Local Plan Policies.

          It is therefore considered that subject to compliance with the attached
          conditions and taking into account all other material planning
          considerations, including the provisions of the development plan, the
          proposal would be acceptable. This also includes a consideration of
          whether the decision to grant permission is compatible with the Human
          Rights Act 1998.

2    The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions
     relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of
     conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to
     discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the
     appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's
     website.
——————————————————————————————————




                                    58      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
                                    Part 1


                 EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL


                  MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

                   Applications determined by the
                Council as the Local Planning Authority

                                APPENDIX B
                                                                      PS.366/2012
                                                                     12 April 2012



    PROPOSAL      DEMOLITION OF COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS, DEMOLITION
                  OF 3 SECTIONS OF WALL IN VICINITY OF
                  COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS TO INCLUDE 4.5M SECTION OF
                  EAST WALL TO ENABLE ACCESS OFF RYEBRIDGE LANE
                  TO FROYLE HOUSE AND NARROWING OF ACCESS TO
                  FORM FOOTPATH, INCREASE IN HEIGHT OF 13M OF
                  NORTH-WEST WALL OF COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS, THREE
                  REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS FRONTING RYEBRIDGE
                  LANE WITH PARKING TO REAR, ONE NEW DWELLING
                  WITHIN FROYLE HOUSE WALLED GARDEN,
                  ALTERATIONS TO GARAGE, NEW LEAN-TO GARAGE,
                  LANDSCAPING, PARKING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS
    LOCATION:     Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House, Ryebridge Lane, Upper
                  Froyle, Alton, GU34 4JX
    REFERENCE     39958/004/FUL/AE
    NO:

1        The proposal involves the erection of a new dwelling in the Countryside
         beyond the settlement policy boundary of Upper Froyle as identified in the
         East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review for which insufficient
         justification has been made on grounds of enabling development or need;
         The proposal would therefore be contrary to the Policies GS1, GS3 and
         H14 in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review, the
         English Heritage Guidance, Enabling Development and the Conservation
         of Significant Places.

2        In the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure the repairs to
         the listed wall, the proposal fails to secure the long term stability, integrity
         and appearance of the listed wall contrary to policies GS1, GS3, HE7,
         HE9 and HE10 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review




                                       59      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
3        No provision has been made for public open space within the proposal
         contrary to Policy R3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second
         Review.

4        No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures
         with the proposal, contrary to Policy GS4 of the East Hampshire District
         Local Plan: Second Review and the Council's 'Guide to Developers'
         Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'.

5        No provision has been made towards environmental improvements,
         contrary to Policy GS4 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second
         Review and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other
         Planning Requirements'.



    PROPOSAL         DEMOLITION OF COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS,
                     ALTERATIONS TO WALLED GARDEN OF FROYLE
                     HOUSE AND ALTERATIONS TO GARAGES
    LOCATION:        Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House, Ryebridge Lane,
                     Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4JX
    REFERENCE        39958/005/LBC/AE
    NO:

1        The proposal would result in the demolition and alteration to curtilage
         listed walls and garages without any approval for redevelopment of the
         site. The resulting partial clearance of the site which would cause visual
         harm to the character and appearance of the Listed Buildings, contrary to
         policy HE7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.




                                    60      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
    PROPOSAL         DEMOLITION OF COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS,
                     DEMOLITION OF 3 SECTIONS OF WALL IN VICINITY OF
                     COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS TO INCLUDE 4.5M SECTION
                     OF EAST WALL TO ENABLE ACCESS OFF RYEBRIDGE
                     LANE TO FROYLE HOUSE AND NARROWING OF
                     ACCESS TO FORM FOOTPATH, INCREASE IN HEIGHT
                     OF 13M OF NORTH-WEST WALL OF
                     COLTHOUSE/CATTLEYS (APPLICATION FOR
                     CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT)
    LOCATION:        Cattleys, Colthouse and Froyle House, Ryebridge Lane,
                     Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4JX
    REFERENCE        39958/006/CAC/AE
    NO:

1        The proposal would result in the demolition of buildings and partial
         demolition of walls within the conservation area on a site without any
         approval for redevelopment of the site. The resulting cleared site would
         cause visual harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation
         Area, contrary to policies HE9 and HE10 of the East Hampshire District
         Local Plan: Second Review.




                                    61      Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012
                                  Part 2



                 EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

                  MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

            Applications determined by the Council on behalf
              of the South Downs National Park Authority

                               APPENDIX B

                                                                  PS.366/2012
                                                                 12 April 2012



    PROPOSAL          TWO REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED
                      ACCESS FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF ORIGINAL
                      DWELLINGS (AMENDMENT TO DESIGN AND ACCESS
                      STATEMENT RECEIVED 28/3/2012)
    LOCATION:         Old Heath Lodge, Hill Brow Road, Liss, GU33 7QD
    REFERENCE         SDNP/23941/011/FUL/NP
    NO:

1    The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site where the
     additional building mass, bulk and scale of the two replacement dwellings,
     the siting of Plot 2 and the high degree of hard surfacing would be
     unsympathetic to the prevailing low density character of the area and
     would fail to retain or enhance the landscape setting of the site within its
     surroundings, contrary to Policies HE1, GS2 and H9 of the East
     Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.
——————————————————————————————————




                                    62     Planning Committee Minutes – 12.04.2012

								
To top